사기등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The prosecutor of the grounds for appeal asserts that the defendant, in collusion with E, the Vice-President of the Bank of Korea Institute of Engineering and Technology to forge five copies of the test report in the name of the President of the Korea Institute of Engineering and Technology, and to use it to take advantage of the victim's 37,801,259 won by deceiving the victim, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have a public contest relationship between the defendant and E, and that the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles
2. Determination
A. The Defendant is the representative director of D (ju) for the purpose of manufacturing business, etc. in the Vietnam-si in the facts charged in the instant case, and E is a person in charge of overall control over the supply of chemical power plants to the deputy head of (ju)G for manufacturing business, etc. from the Pakistan-si F.
Around September 5, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Chancheon Power Headquarters of the Victim's South-dong Development Republic of Korea with the “H” (hereinafter referred to as the “P”), according to the said contract, the materials and physical properties (physical properties) prosecutor of the Czemix shall comply with the test results of the relevant authorized institution, and submit the test results, etc. of the authorized institution at the time of supply
(A) On September 28, 2012, the Defendant provided a subcontract to the G for the mixing of the consortiums manufactured under the above contract, on or around September 28, 2012. Around October 12, 2012, G’s Vice-Chairperson completed the mixinging work for the above pooling, but there is insufficient time to request the Korea Institute of Engineering and Technology to conduct the test for the mixing, and the Defendant cannot be issued the test report by the due date. The Defendant provided that E is not issued the test report to the effect that the date of issuance of the test report previously issued to E is forged.